On 4 May 2007 04:03:17 -0700, George Dishman wrote:

On 4 May, 10:33, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 May 2007 00:26:21 -0700, George Dishman wrote:
On 4 May, 03:36, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2007 00:21:07 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
My question was, "what intrinsic property of an individual photon produces
a
sensation of a 'frequency'?

No it wasn't, the question was what is the definition
of frequency and that is what I explained above. I have
restored what you cut trying to cover it up.

In other words, what aspect of photon structure 'oscillates'?

A photon has no structure so nothing oscillates in it.

Hahahaha!

What makes a photon different from anything else then George?

It has different intrinsic properties.

How can anything have 'intrinsic properties' (which can be measured in
3space1time) if it doesn't have a 'structure'?

Consider some entity A. It is made of entities B and C.
A has properties which come from the properties of B
and C plus some influence from the relationship between
B and C. For example the mass of A might be the sum
of the masses of B and C plus the binding energy of the
pair. As you go down the scale, eventually you come to
something fundamental which is not composed of other
things, and yet it must have some properties of its own.

I think you just enjoy arguing, George.


Location is a continuous variable. It is not possible to
calculate exactly where a photon will land given an
experimental setup, you can only calculate the probability
as a function of location. That is an intrinsic property of
all particles.

George, if a thousand bullets are fired at a target, the way they are
distributed around the bull follows an established statistical law.

Yes, and that is true even if the gun is locked into position.

However, if single ONE bullet is fired at the target, it has zero probability
of landing anywhere other than at the point where the gun was aimed. (please
don't mention wind shear)

No, it has exactly the same probability of landing at any location
as each of the thousand.

No it doesn't!!!!!! Probability is not a cause of anything. It's a result.

All those bullets that were normally distributed around the bull landed exactly
where they did for purely physical reasons.
Where the bullet will strike is precisely determined BEFORE it is fired. Even
factors like the nerve movements of the shooter and the wind movements are
precisely predetermined. There is no way anyone could produce a mathematical
model to predict the outcome but it is still theoretically possible.

Statistics is the most misinterpreted science of all....

Indeed, though your mistake above is less common than
others. The key here is that the pprobability for each bullet
is unaffected by the existence of any preceding shot.

That is not related to my statement.

It is
similar to tossing an unbiassed coin, the probability is
50:50 regardless of the outcome of preceding tosses, only
the variable is 2D real (location on the target) rather than
binary (heads or tails).

Yes I know that George.

If you drop a thousand ball bearings on the floor they will end up normally
distributed around the centre....BUT that does not alter the fact thta there
was a precise physical reason why every one came to rest right where it did.

No, the 'traveling oscillation' model is the macroscopic
equivalent for a group of photons.

That's also true....but it is a different package.

Just the aggregate,

The way I see it is that a monochromatic beam is just a large number of
identical photons with that particular 'wavelength'.

White light is a mixture.

A radio signal is a mixture in which groups of individual photons form sine
shaped 'bunches' which move along. ..somewhat like a water wave except the
photons move back and forth rather than up and down.

This has given me an idea. Do the individual photons move or remain at
basically the same location?
I'll have to make an animation of this.



It is not a theory, it is logically obvious, the energy cannot
be dumped in two different places at the same time.

George, there are two alternatives.
The energy/unit volume of an RF signal can be the sum of all the h.nu energy
of individual photons in that volume. ...or it could be something like
2pi^2.h.A^2.f^3/c...

Sure, I expect the formula to be different in BaTh, but
the argument still holds, that energy is deposited where
the photon lands, not somehwere else.

That's probably OK for monochromatic light but you can't deduce that the same
will apply to, say, RF.

You don't know if the photon that enters the PM is the same one that was
incident on the grating. One is absorbed and another emitted.

It makes no difference.

Anyway, we know the classical theory of gratings..

I don't think you do, you can't even work out whether speed
appears in the BaTh equations for a grating.

This argument is not about how gratings behave according to BaTh.

Of course it is.

The BaTh doesn't need gratings to verify it.

I don't know what the lowest frequency of individual
detected photons is. However, grating methods are
applied at RF regularly and work fine. The photons
carry the energy and the energy goes where the wave
equations say it will therefore so do the photons.

Water waves carry longitudinal energy...but the individual molecules go up and
down. Their vertical KE is NOT what is carried with the wave.

The wave energy is deposited where the waves lap the shore,
not somewhere else.

But the energy of the vertically oscillating water molecules is continuously
being dampened out and absorbed as heat in the ocean.

Nobody knows that actual role of individual photons in this process.

Yes we do, from the optical behaviour. EM is the same
whether high frequency or low and gratings work as well
at microwave as they do in the infra-red.

So they should. They are wavelength dependent.

Wavelength and/or frequency.

Since nobody has a clue what photon 'wavelength' or 'frequency' actually
signify, that is a pretty meaningless statement.

So why don't you know what they do? A grating reflects
an incident wave to a particular point on a screen along

Huygens.

Exactly, the place where the energy lands on the screen is
controlled by the intrinsic property of the individual photons,
but it is also where Huygens' method says it will land, hence
the wavelength and/or frequency of each photon must be the
same as the macroscopic wave, hence K=1.

Here's another analogy.
The cars on the highway are made of rubber and all carry a heavy positive
surface charge. What do you think happens to their lengths as they slow down
and speed up in different speed zones?

I think when the charge is taken to some destination, the car
also arrives at the same place. You can't send the car to
Boston and have the charge arrive in Cairo which is what you
are suggesting. Beyond that discussions of their length are
irrelevant, the length has no analog in the photon.

How do you know.
The concept matches the data very well.

George



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.